A new one: “unwitting racism”

You misrepresent what I said.

The CRE are not a credible source. They are a lobby group with an appalling record of racism themselves.

The misuse of the Home Office stats you are referring to by the CRE was spotted in Parliament and the then head of the CRE, Herman, now Lord Ouseley just spluttered and made excuses. The deliberate misrepresentation of numbers from the British Crime survey to make it appear that Whites were exceedingly vicious and non-Whites disproportionately victims ought to have seen Ouseley and co shut down and maybe even prosecuted.

Mr Howarth: One of the things which concerns me is that in a publication called Don't Shut Your Eyes, Take a Stand against Racism, you say at one point that black people in some areas are eight times more likely to be stopped and searched by police than white people, according to the 1998 report, but that figure is at variance with the Home Office's figure of five times. Why is there a difference in these two figures? Are you seeking to generate more concern about the disparity of treatment as between ethnic minorities and whites?

Herman Ouseley: No, we are certainly not seeking to do that. Whatever figure that is quoted there is an accurate figure. We talk about "some areas" not the—

Howarth: But that must be the case, must it not? In Brixton, for example, there are more likely to be black people therefore they are more likely to be stopped than white people.

Ouseley: It is factually correct, there is nothing inaccurate about it, we are not seeking to inflame the situation or indeed inflate the situation.

Howarth: But do you not understand that by putting it in this fashion you are doing precisely that? If you are not seeking to inflame, the impression you are giving is that while the Home Office, a responsible organisation, is using the figure of five times, you are using the figure of eight times, and that is the impression you are leaving with people.
------------------------
Howarth: Can I ask how many racially motivated incidents there were—and I am not sure to whom I should be addressing this—in the last year or the most recent figures?

Ouseley: I think we have it somewhere in our presentation.

Howarth: Perhaps I can assist. I understand the figure which is used is 143,000 or thereabouts but nowhere in your literature do you deal with the total figure. The 143,000, Sir Herman, is surely only the racially motivated incidents by whites against ethnic minorities. Why is it you ignore the 238,000 incidents that occurred by ethnic minorities against whites, or are those of no concern to you?

Ouseley: Any racial incident is a concern to us, irrespective of who the perpetrator is or who the victim is. We seek all the time to stress that any incident in which there is racial motivation is unacceptable and we seek for the police to respond to those matters and indeed the other agencies in an equitable manner. We do not seek in any way to suggest one form of racial harassment or violence is worse than another.

Howarth: Why is it that they do not deal with the total number of racially motivated incidents which is in fact nearly 400,000 and a very substantial majority of those are attacks not by whites on blacks but by blacks or Asians on whites? That seems to me to be a matter which the Commission ought to be concerned about and we should, as a Committee, too.

Ouseley: We are indeed concerned. As I have already said, we are concerned and are working to see a reduction in the number of racial incidents irrespective of who the perpetrators are and who the victims are.

Howarth: Why do you not mention that in your literature? Why is it you take the worst examples?

Ouseley: We do mention it in literature. We have a variety of sources from which we provide information about racially motivated incidents. We can only use the information we have that is presented to us. We use official statistics and—

Howarth: The figures I have quoted to you are from the British Crime Survey, they are not from the National Front or something. These are statistics which are in the public domain but which you, as a publicly funded body accountable to Parliament and accountable to the British people, do not use and drive some of us to the conclusion that actually you are concerned with painting the blackest possible picture, that you are an organisation which is utterly incompetent and inefficient, and that you are doing a disservice to the British people.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmhaff/81/9011203.htm

Well done Gerald Howarth!

The stats unspun for your perusal Ozy:

280,000 racially aggrivated crimes

Out of the 280,000 crimes, there were only 98,000 with ethnic-minority victims.

This means that the 9% of the population which is ethnic-minority was committing at least 65% of the race-hate crimes (i say at least, because the minorities victimise each other). Note how the CrimeReduction website spins the numbers just like the CRE did to create a false impression of White guilt and non-White victimhood. There's no page focusing on White victim stats and the graph at the bottom of the page claims to show "Which Ethnic Groups are Most Affected by Racially Motivated Crime", but omits the group most victimised according to their own stats - Whites.

edit: so does the media reflect the truth Ozy? In our newspapers and TV shows are around 65% of racist crimes committed against Whites? You chose the stats.

Reply 82

Iago

1

I know my broad viewing of generally popular-to highbrow media shows racism to be mainly a White failing, while on the criminal level using official stats interracial hatred is consistently shown to be a minority success story par excellence.

Racism, in our culture, in our nation, in recent times and during recent history, has been a predominantly white failing. That's not to say that non-whites aren't as naturally racist or as frequently racist as whites - this is not the case. Neither does it say that there haven't been immense amounts of anti-white racism elsewhere in time and space. But the reason for what you see is that our particular little bit of the world has in the past been systematically racist in a culturally ingrained way...and that racism was anti-non-whites for the most part. That's not to say that whites are evil and non-whites good...its purely circumstantial that it was this way around. But it was this way around, and this is why the idea of anti-non-white racism is so much more prominent as an idea of racism in society today.

It's perfectly understandable.

As for the stats...most racism related crimes are committed by whites. Most crimes are committed by whites. Because there are lots of whites. Because we're the majority. Proportionatly the picture isn't so clear...there is disproportionate amount of racism related relates crimes between asian and afro-caribbean communities in certain areas. You're right here. But this fact is talked about aplenty in the media. Nonetheless...its only one aspect of a big picture, and anti-non-white racism forms a large and signifcant part of this picture.

Reply 83

Iago

Racism, in our culture, in our nation, in recent times and during recent history, has been a predominantly white failing. That's not to say that non-whites aren't as naturally racist or as frequently racist as whites - this is not the case. Neither does it say that there haven't been immense amounts of anti-white racism elsewhere in time and space. But the reason for what you see is that our particular little bit of the world has in the past been systematically racist in a culturally ingrained way...and that racism was anti-non-whites for the most part.

I don't agree. Pretty much all native cultures are racist in pretty much the same ways. You're looking to include a time when there were practically no non-Whites here - a pointless comment.

As for the stats...most racism related crimes are committed by whites.

This is false. Official Home Office stats prove that it's the other way round (as linked to above).

Proportionatly the picture isn't so clear...there is disproportionate amount of racism related relates crimes between asian and afro-caribbean communities in certain areas.

Look to the official stats and it becomes easy to work out proportionately. The average non-White is around 20 times more likely to commit a crime with some element of racial aggravation against a White, than is a White against a non-White. It'll be even higher because the Black and Asian (that's Pak/Bangi primarily) groups are especially hostile to each other and especially criminal.

I'd guess the Chinese and Indians will be victims of both in around the same proportion as Whites are, and are perhaps less likely than Whites to commit race-crimes.

Reply 84

Iago,

I'm sure that many of those who make the decision to paint an incomplete or incorrect picture of race/crime/and racism have the motive and reasoning you suggest - a vague sort of guilt about history, and a belief that past injustices need to be redressed, but I wonder how responsible these people are for some of the White victims of thugs who carry a sense of racial grievance fostered and inculcated by a culture which, quite dishonestly, but constantly tells them how racist Whites are.

Reply 85

ArthurOliver

The stats unspun for your perusal Ozy:

280,000 racially aggrivated crimes

Out of the 280,000 crimes, there were only 98,000 with ethnic-minority victims.

This means that the 9% of the population which is ethnic-minority was committing at least 65% of the race-hate crimes (i say at least, because the minorities victimise each other). Note how the CrimeReduction website spins the numbers just like the CRE did to create a false impression of White guilt and non-White victimhood. There's no page focusing on White victim stats and the graph at the bottom of the page claims to show "Which Ethnic Groups are Most Affected by Racially Motivated Crime", but omits the group most victimised according to their own stats - Whites.

edit: so does the media reflect the truth Ozy? In our newspapers and TV shows are around 65% of racist crimes committed against Whites? You chose the stats.

That 35% of the victims of race hate crime, by your own admission, are from ethnic minorities, proves the point that members of ethnic minorities are disproportionately victims of race hate crime, given that they make up 9% of the population. You criticised the statistics I posted as being inadequate by posting an unrelated link, concerning an inquiry that took place in 1999 about a leaflet published by the CRE, when the statistics I posted had nothing to do with that leaflet and go up to 2001: this argument is not about the CRE's historic record of accuracy, it's about thosee numbers. You posted statistics of your own which did nothing to contradict those I posted, and made an unsubstantiated conclusion: "White", fairly obviously, isn't an ethnic group. Just because a racist crime is directed against a white person, it doesn't follow that the perpetrator wasn't also white. Jews are white, as are Eastern Europeans and Travellers. What's needed for this debate to move forward are statistics of the ethnicities of the perpetrators of race hate crimes. I don't deny that racist crimes can be (and are) committed by anyone of any ethnicity against people of any other ethnicity, but again, that's not the issue.

Reply 86

Oddly enough, in the CRE link you provided they say Whites are an ethnic group!

You're right that my links were about total numbers of victims vs victims who were ethnic minorities, and that I over simplify and say Whites and non-Whites. Some of the ethnic minority victims may be White - true (though it doesn't help your general argument) - I rather think it more prudent if we are to make assumptions at all, to assume that more Blacks and Asians and White-ethnic-minorities victimise one another, than do majority Whites victimise the very small number of minority Whites - let's be realistic. If I was wrong to say Whites and non-Whites it's not going to change much, and correcting it only adds to number of White victims without any suggestion that they will have been victimised by other Whites.

What's needed for this debate to move forward are statistics of the ethnicities of the perpetrators of race hate crimes.

Ideally, but the fact that individuals from ethnic minorities as whole are massively more likely commit race-crimes against the majority ethnics is settled. They are about 20 times more likely. Knowing the perps racial identity might only change one thing - we could find that most of the ethnic minority victims suffered at the hands of members of another ethnic minority group (again, I suspect something you'd rather not wish to be so).

Also, and I pointed this out already, what is needed is a credible study of media coverage. The race and crime stats prove nothing and I wasn't the one who brought them into the thread.

Reply 87

Sorry Ozy, might be more like "10 times as likely" above. :redface:

Reply 88

Vienna

Ozymandias

It's perfectly possible to consciously be opposed to racial prejudice and at the same time react differently to different people according to their racial origins, because of unwitting prejudice.

Please explain how its possible to formulate "preconceived judgments" and yet remain unaware of your doing so, since conceiving such judgements requires you "to form or develop in the mind, to apprehend mentally, to understand".

This goes some way to demonstrating that. Of course it doesn't automatically follow that this will lead to police officers letting a man die because he's black, but it would be strange if it had absolutely no effect on people's behaviour, and it does demonstrate that people react subconsciously to things like race.

So how do you plan on deciding when an act of unwitting racism has been committed? Brain scans? Thought monitoring?

If its "strange if it had absolutely no effect on people's behaviour". Which people, all of us?

Reply 89

Lawz-

14

Vienna

Please explain how its possible to formulate "preconceived judgments" and yet remain unaware of your doing so, since conceiving such judgements requires you "to form or develop in the mind, to apprehend mentally, to understand".

What is the issue with an individual forming or mentally apprehending a conclusion in a subconscious manner?

Even then - it may well have been consciously aprehended, but its later influence on a situation may be subconscious or unwitting.

Vienna

So how do you plan on deciding when an act of unwitting racism has been committed? Brain scans? Thought monitoring?

I dont really think there is a practical way. However, if someone treats blacks differently to whites, or the other way around, without good cause, one might conclude that such racism is likely.

All in all its something of a theoretical exercise for me.

Reply 90

Vienna

Lawz-

What is the issue with an individual forming or mentally apprehending a conclusion in a subconscious manner?

Since apprehending requires conscious acknowledgement

"To grasp mentally;to become conscious of"

Even then - it may well have been consciously aprehended, but its later influence on a situation may be subconscious or unwitting.

But its to that decision making process which im referring.

Im sure its perfectly possible for the body to subsconsciously react to other people, but I disagree that we can't acknowledge prejudicial decision making based on the the conception of irrational judgements.

To charge someone with racism, or unwitting racism, is to suggest that there was discrimination in their judgement or decision making. To apply this to the context of our police officers, who clearly had time to make a number of conscious decisions, I dont see what purpose or merit "unwitting" racism has.

Reply 91

Vienna

Please explain how its possible to formulate "preconceived judgments" and yet remain unaware of your doing so, since conceiving such judgements requires you "to form or develop in the mind, to apprehend mentally, to understand".

Call it what you like. Prejudice might be the wrong word. When you say:

Im sure its perfectly possible for the body to subsconsciously react to other people

then you're essentially agreeing with me.

So how do you plan on deciding when an act of unwitting racism has been committed? Brain scans? Thought monitoring?

If its "strange if it had absolutely no effect on people's behaviour". Which people, all of us?

I didn't say anything about what should be done about it, or how or whether it should be monitored, simply that it's possible for it to exist. And yes, it's quite conceivable that everyone reacts subconsciously to others based on their appearance. I know I react differently to people according to how they're dressed. If I'm walking down a deserted street in the middle of the night, and a man walking the other way is wearing a hoodie, I become wary of them, yet this emotion would be completely absent if the same man was wearing a suit. There is a logical justification for the subconscious reaction in this instance - I've only ever been mugged by people wearing hoodies, never suits - but my emotional reaction kicks in before any conscious judgement is made.

ArthurOliver

Oddly enough, in the CRE link you provided they say Whites are an ethnic group!

You're right that my links were about total numbers of victims vs victims who were ethnic minorities, and that I over simplify and say Whites and non-Whites. Some of the ethnic minority victims may be White - true (though it doesn't help your general argument) - I rather think it more prudent if we are to make assumptions at all, to assume that more Blacks and Asians and White-ethnic-minorities victimise one another, than do majority Whites victimise the very small number of minority Whites - let's be realistic. If I was wrong to say Whites and non-Whites it's not going to change much, and correcting it only adds to number of White victims without any suggestion that they will have been victimised by other Whites.

I think it's more prudent to make no assumptions at all. And no, adding ethnic minority Whites into the equation doesn't necessarily help your argument, since neither the CRE's figures nor those you cited make any mention of white ethnic minorities, meaning that it could just as easily be that to take them into account we have to increase the number of ethnic minority victims - already, as I have mentioned, disproportionately high - and therefore reduce the number of victims of race hate crimes who aren't members of ethnic minorities.

Ideally, but the fact that individuals from ethnic minorities as whole are massively more likely commit race-crimes against the majority ethnics is settled. They are about 20 times more likely. Knowing the perps racial identity might only change one thing - we could find that most of the ethnic minority victims suffered at the hands of members of another ethnic minority group (again, I suspect something you'd rather not wish to be so).

Also, and I pointed this out already, what is needed is a credible study of media coverage. The race and crime stats prove nothing and I wasn't the one who brought them into the thread.

You keep asserting that members of ethnic minorities are more likely to commit race hate crimes, yet by your own admission no figures have yet been provided that shed light on this either way. "Knowing the perp's racial identity" is the only thing that could possibly settle the question. The racial identity of the victim, with the inadequate figures both of us have quoted, prove nothing of the kind you claim they do. I don't deny that it's possible you're right, and contrary to your suspicions, I wouldn't especially mind. I'm not arguing you're wrong, just that you haven't yet shown that you're right.

Reply 92

Ozymandias

You keep asserting that members of ethnic minorities are more likely to commit race hate crimes, yet by your own admission no figures have yet been provided that shed light on this either way. "Knowing the perp's racial identity" is the only thing that could possibly settle the question. The racial identity of the victim, with the inadequate figures both of us have quoted, prove nothing of the kind you claim they do. I don't deny that it's possible you're right, and contrary to your suspicions, I wouldn't especially mind. I'm not arguing you're wrong, just that you haven't yet shown that you're right.

This is not true. The only stats contrasting total ethnic minority and total ethnic majority victimhood were very clear. The British Crime Survey numbers from 1999 had 280,000 total victims, of whom just 98,000 were ethnic-minority, while 182,000 were ethnic-majority. This means that the 9% ethnic-minority population is committing around 65% of the race-crimes. On an individual basis that means each minority is around ten times more likely to commit such a crime than is a majority member.

That's for all crimes with a racial element. For racially aggravated murder, the ultimate race-hate crime, the numbers are similar.

Over this three-year period (ending 2004), the police reported to the Home Office 22 homicides where there was a known racial motivation. Twelve victims were White, 4 Asian, 3 Black and 3 of ‘Other’ ethnic origin. There were no current suspects identified for 5 of these victims, 3 of who were White, 1 Black and 1 ‘Other’.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/s95race04.pdf

It's whites who are hated and murdered disproportionately (if Whites were as likely to kill as the other groups, then the other groups would record far higher levels of victimhood than Whites because 10 times more Whites would be murdering non-Whites than the reverse). I do not believe this disparity can be explained away by supposing that Whites are killing Whites of other White ethnic groups but not killing non-Whites, and that non-White groups are killing each other but not killing Whites. It's preposterous, but this alone could explain the numbers while still supporting the idea that Whites aren't less prone to commit race-hate murder.

Let's move on. This is a redundant issue anyway without credible media coverage stats, and it's off-topic anyway.

edit: Ozy, my suspicion (certainty really) is known, but do you believe that racism in the media is not more identified as a White failing than as a universal one? Racist TV and movie villains? Rhetoric from celebs and identity-group spokesmen and politicians? Don't the media let the racist trash-talkers like Ice Cube and Kanye West get away with hateful crap that they would never allow from a White musician? How do the crime stats above square with the way the media and CRE spun them, did anyone but RightNow! point out that they mean quite striking levels of racist crime from some minority groups?

I think you are too willing to make excuses for misconduct by minorities and to allow the media to present a false picture of the issues.

...then let's move on.

Reply 93

Atomik

9

Ozymandias

Just because a racist crime is directed against a white person, it doesn't follow that the perpetrator wasn't also white.

But this wouldn't make any sense! A white person cannot be racist against another white person.

Jews are white

LOL. Jews are a race! They aren't white!

as are Eastern Europeans and Travellers.

Depends which travellers you are talking about. Romani travellers are not white.

Why do you people continue to reject the fact that anti-white racism exists? It's like you WANT whites to be the only race capable of racism. Face it, there is a hell of a lot of anti-white racism out there; anti-white racism which is largely ignored by the media.

Reply 94

ArthurOliver

This is not true. The only stats contrasting total ethnic minority and total ethnic majority victimhood were very clear. The British Crime Survey numbers from 1999 had 280,000 total victims, of whom just 98,000 were ethnic-minority, while 182,000 were ethnic-majority. This means that the 9% ethnic-minority population is committing around 65% of the race-crimes. On an individual basis that means each minority is around ten times more likely to commit such a crime than is a majority member.
That's for all crimes with a racial element. For racially aggravated murder, the ultimate race-hate crime, the numbers are similar.It's whites who are hated and murdered disproportionately (if Whites were as likely to kill as the other groups, then the other groups would record far higher levels of victimhood than Whites because 10 times more Whites would be murdering non-Whites than the reverse). I do not believe this disparity can be explained away by supposing that Whites are killing Whites of other White ethnic groups but not killing non-Whites, and that non-White groups are killing each other but not killing Whites. It's preposterous, but this alone could explain the numbers while still supporting the idea that Whites aren't less prone to commit race-hate murder.

Let's move on. This is a redundant issue anyway without credible media coverage stats, and it's off-topic anyway.

To repeat: the figures both of us provided were inadequate, as it is at the very least unclear as to whether they take into account ethnic minorities who are also white. It is therefore perfectly possible a large number of the white victims were also ethnic minority (saying the only possible explanation is that white people don't attack non-whites and vice versa is also wrong, and I fail to see where you drew that conclusion from). I certainly don't state that this is the case, merely that you are jumping to conclusions not adequately supported by the evidence.

edit: Ozy, my suspicion (certainty really) is known, but do you believe that racism in the media is not more identified as a White failing than as a universal one? Racist TV and movie villains? Rhetoric from celebs and identity-group spokesmen and politicians? Don't the media let the racist trash-talkers like Ice Cube and Kanye West get away with hateful crap that they would never allow from a White musician? How do the crime stats above square with the way the media and CRE spun them, did anyone but RightNow! point out that they mean quite striking levels of racist crime from some minority groups?

I think you are too willing to make excuses for misconduct by minorities and to allow the media to present a false picture of the issues.

...then let's move on.

I'm not making excuses for anyone, just criticising your reasoning. And yes, it's probably true that white supremacists appear far more often in most forms of media than other racists. Again, though, it's hard to draw any conclusions from this without some kind of scientific study.

Atomik

A white person cannot be racist against another white person.

Depends which travellers you are talking about. Romani travellers are not white.

So by your own admission, some Travellers are white, such as Irish Travellers, who are a distinct ethnic group (see here). A distinct ethnic group can face racial prejudice, and yet white people can't be racist towards other white people? ^o) Racism isn't a simple question of skin colour. The genocide in Rwanda was caused in part by racism between Hutus and Tutsis - two black African ethnic groups.

LOL. Jews are a race! They aren't white!

Jewishness could possibly be described as an ethnicity, but certainly not a race. Either way, though, Jews certainly can be white (there are black Jews from Ethiopia). Even the apartheid-era South African government classified them as such. Source from Wikipedia:

The population was classified into four groups: Black, White, Indian, and "Coloured".

Reply 95

Lawz-

14

Atomik

But this wouldn't make any sense! A white person cannot be racist against another white person.

Of course they can. It would be somewhat self-depricating, but it is certainly possible.

The racial equivilent of calling your sibling a son-of-a-btch.

Reply 96

Ozymandias

To repeat: the figures both of us provided were inadequate, as it is at the very least unclear as to whether they take into account ethnic minorities who are also white. It is therefore perfectly possible a large number of the white victims were also ethnic minority (saying the only possible explanation is that white people don't attack non-whites and vice versa is also wrong, and I fail to see where you drew that conclusion from). I certainly don't state that this is the case, merely that you are jumping to conclusions not adequately supported by the evidence.

Whether or not the 1999 British Crime survey figures count White minorities as minorities is redundant, there were fewer ethnic minority victims than ethnic majority. So when you kept asserting that I kept "asserting that members of ethnic minorities are more likely to commit race hate crimes, yet by (my) own admission no figures have yet been provided that shed light on this either way," you were wrong. This imbalance requires that the ethnic majority group be far, far less likely to commit race-crimes than the various minorities as a whole (including Whites or not). An equal propensity to commit these crimes would see around 10 times more ethnic minority victims than ethnic majority victims, simply because there are around ten times as many potential villains in the majority group.

Move on Ozy, it's a new dawn!

Lawz

Of course they can. It would be somewhat self-depricating, but it is certainly possible.

The racial equivilent of calling your sibling a son-of-a-btch.

I think it's more likely to be inter-ethnic, between Whites racism. Such as Scots vs English, or native tensions with eastern European migrants.

Reply 97

Agent Smith

11

Is Scots vs English really racism?

Reply 98

Agent Smith

Is Scots vs English really racism?

I would say it is, but regardless of where we would draw the line, Scots or Welsh/English and EastEuros/native Brits are by far the most likely candidates to crop up in any proposed category of inter-White race-crime.

Reply 99